Valassakis v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. G--320,G--320 |
| Citation | 187 So.2d 74 |
| Parties | John P. VALASSAKIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Daniel S. Pearson and Monroe Gelb, Miami, for appellant.
Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and James G. Mahorner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Valassakis appeals from a conviction for the crime of grand larceny.
Dr. Pete Filos, Dr. John Canakaris and Appellant Valassakis owned the stock of Bellair Apartments, Inc. Defendant was the corporation's manager and president, and Warren Cole, Jr., was its attorney. The corporate assets had recently been sold and on Friday, November 29, 1963 Cole gave Valassakis a $19,468.79 check drawn on the attorney's trust account in the Commercial Bank at Daytona Beach. This check was made payable to Bellair Apartments, Inc. and represented part of the purchase price of the corporate assets. Defendant immediately endorsed the check as president of Bellair, deposited same to his personal account in the Commercial Bank, and withdrew $1,000.00 in cash. Later that day he deposited to an old inactive personal account at the First Atlantic National Bank a $10,000.00 check drawn on his account at the Commercial Bank. On Sunday he called Dr. Canakaris and told him to be in Cole's office on the following Wednesday at which time the funds would be disbursed. The Commercial Bank was closed Saturday and Sunday, but Monday was a busy day for all concerned. On that day the following checks drawn on defendant's personal account were presented for payment at the Commercial Bank--1 check for $5,000, 2 checks for $1,000 cash and the $10,000 check which had been deposited at First Atlantic, and defendant purchased about $7,000 in travelers checks at the First Atlantic National Bank and two one-way tickets for Brussels, Belgium. Meanwhile, Cole had called the Commercial Bank regarding his $19,468.79 check, discovered that it had been improperly endorsed, and requested that payment be stopped.
A few days later the two doctors received a letter from the defendant asking forgiveness for his cowardly act, stating that he was desperate when he left Daytona, that he had tried to make a 'go of our venture' but had made mistakes, and that he would 'invest our money to the advantage of all of us, so we can repay the debts that are outstanding.' When defendant's departing dust had settled, his overdrafts at the Commercial Bank amounted to $7,234.22.
The information charged Valassakis with grand larceny under Section 811.021, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., in that he did take and carry away $7,234.22 in U.S. money, property of Commercial Bank.
In summary, the undisputed facts are that Valassakis had set out to appropriate for himself funds belonging to the corporation. The evidence is clear and positive to the effect that he had no authority to endorse the corporation's check for the purpose of depositing same to his personal account, but he nevertheless did so and then proceeded immediately on a two-day banking spree to obtain the proceeds in cash or traveler's checks. This accomplished he departed this state and country, but not until he had written his regrets and apologies to the two men he anticipated would suffer. By a quirk of fate the funds he had assiduously acquired did not belong to the corporation, as was his belief, but to the Commercial Bank.
The only point that merits our attention is Valassakis' contention that reversible error lay in the material variance between the information and the evidence, since the information charged the defendant with grand larceny of the property of the Commercial Bank at Daytona Beach whereas the evidence, when viewed most favorably to the state, disclosed that the property was that of the corporation.
This is the type case contemplated by Section 811.021, a single statute embracing the separate offenses heretofore...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boratto
...347, 44 N.E.2d 679 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1942); People v. Robinson, 23 Mich.App. 672, 179 N.W.2d 239 (Ct.App.1970). See also, Valassakis v. State,187 So.2d 74 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1966); R. v. Taylor, 15 Cox C.C. 268 (Q.B. 1883). Cf. State v. Zwillman, 112 N.J.Super. 6, 270 A.2d 284 (App.Div. 1970), cert......
-
D.J.S., In Interest of
...injury to one other than the intended victim. See Coston v. State, 139 Fla. 250, 190 So. 520 (1939), cited in Valassakis v. State, 187 So.2d 74, 77 (Fla. 1st DCA 1966), for the doctrine quoted at page 16, note 15, of the en banc decision. 16 It may well have been appropriate to apply this d......
-
Thomas v. State
...its variations, which existed before the passage of § 811.021, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. We find this to be of no avail. See: Valassakis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 74, wherein the following is * * * * * * '* * * It has been said that the obvious purpose of statutes like the one under conside......
-
Adjustment Specialists, Inc. v. Collection Bureau of Orlando, Inc.
...§ 18; 7 Fla.Jur., Conversion, § 5.3 L. & N. R.R. Co. v. Citiz. & Peoples Nat'l Bank, 1917, 74 Fla. 385, 77 So. 104; Valassakis v. State, Fla.App.1966, 187 So.2d 74; Klein v. Newburger, Loeb & Co., Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 879.4 See notes 2 and 3, supra; H. Bailey, Brady on Bank Checks, 3d Ed......